I've often wondered about the increasing trend of blocky mid sections in bodybuilding during the last 10-20 years.

A BB in my gym has what looks like a pot belly. It's actually "round", not just a "thick" midsection that you see on a lot of the leaner heavyweight PL's and strongmen. Anyway, this guy with a t-shirt on looks like he has a pot belly - clients of mine have actually said things like, "he has a bit of a gut on him". However, his abs are so lean they have veins. Guy is ripped!

yeah supposedly the big blocky midsections are the result of GH making people's intestinal tissue grow. Maybe it is, I dunno. Could just be that the amount of food necessary to get to 300lbs causes distention. Apparently insulin use has made competitors look a bit puffier, as it causes fat to marble through the muscles (kinda like a sirloin steak), but I dunno if that's true.

Haha, a big, ripped, veiny pot belly would be quite a sight. People don't realise that the stomach muscles relax just like any other muscle. No one walks around with a flat stomach unless they are constantly tensing.

srsly, you can't tell me i'm not a grown up and then always personal offend me. that doesn't make sense.

i never said that naturals can compete with drug users. and jungle doc even said there are some kind of modified versions of steroids, which are a bit better. so, what if there are two body builders and one of them is only slightly better, then the slighty worse one takes the modified drug, which gives him a little, little, little, little advantage, then he could maybe be better as the normally better guy. i think this example is easily to understand.

that is just logic and is has nothing to do with the fact that i'm not into drugs.

ephs wrote:srsly, you can't tell me i'm not a grown up and then always personal offend me. that doesn't make sense.

i never said that naturals can compete with drug users. and jungle doc even said there are some kind of modified versions of steroids, which are a bit better. so, what if there are two body builders and one of them is only slightly better, then the slighty worse one takes the modified drug, which gives him a little, little, little, little advantage, then he could maybe be better as the normally better guy. i think this example is easily to understand.

that is just logic and is has nothing to do with the fact that i'm not into drugs.

your example is easy to understand, but it does not happen!

Bodybuilders all use the same gear, made by the same labs. You don't have to take my word on this, do a little research and you'll see I'm right. I have no idea where you are getting your information from, and I suspect you are just making it up as you go along, trying to pass your opinion off as fact.

If you really want to know about the subject, read the book I mentioned earlier. It's all there. Dorian Yates wrote a piece about it for Muscular Development. "Underground Anabolics" by William Llewelyn is a good book to and explains all about the availability of the drugs, the different labs producing them etc.

Yes Jungledoc mentioned that somewhere some scientist might be researching steroids. You really think bodybuilders have access to those? No, they use the same labs they always have.

I don't know what else to tell you. You are wrong, and arguing on a topic that you have no understanding of. I honestly cannot understand why you are trying to talk about a subject you know nothing about. Are you bored where you are? Nothing better to do? If you don't know anything about a subject then maybe close your mouth, open your ears and learn something, otherwise stop posting in threads which are beyond your knowledge.

Our opinions are different, at least we agree on something. Mine are based on research and experience, I have no idea what yours are based on.

I have a similr feeling about the rich
On balance, higher wage earners have worked harder (including study as work) than lower wage earners.
So many want to act as if the rich get all the breaks and if not for being born into it, they be broke, too.

If we all started back at square one with equal net worth, the same group, would rise to the top again, generally.

Oscar_Actuary wrote:I have a similr feeling about the rich
On balance, higher wage earners have worked harder (including study as work) than lower wage earners.
So many want to act as if the rich get all the breaks and if not for being born into it, they be broke, too.

If we all started back at square one with equal net worth, the same group, would rise to the top again, generally.

Oscar_Actuary wrote:I have a similr feeling about the rich
On balance, higher wage earners have worked harder (including study as work) than lower wage earners.

Do you have any evidence to back that up Oscar? It's something I've heard numerous times but as of yet haven't seen anyone back up that statement with anything of substance.

How would someone go about backing that up?

Do they do studies on this kind of thing? (serious question)

Fwiw I agree, anecdotally. I mix, regularly, with all sorts of different people. Some very (financially) successful and others who are in and out of jail, and everything in between. However i've never met someone rich who wasn't self-made. I've heard of people that just come into that lifestyle and maybe these people don't work for it, or maybe they do, but I don't think i've ever met anyone like that so couldn't really comment.

i think the thesis rich people worked harder is true in general. at least they worked more efficient.

a few minutes ago a funny counterexample happened on german tv. a jobless guy won 148k euro (!!!) by answering the question "how is the teenage line of victoria secret called?" with a 50:50 chance. after giving the correct answer "pink" he admitted he doesn't even know what victoria secret is. hard work for the money!

I have no idea if there are studies looking into this, I'd be amazed if there isn't something along these lines. There seems to be studies looking into almost everything these days.

My girlfriends older brother used to work in 'The City'. He used to earn a six figure salary, but he's since jacked it in (he actually lied to get his job but that's another story). He says it was the norm for the offspring of wealthy business people, foreign diplomats or members of the establishment to walk into we'll paid jobs regardless if they were the most suitable or worthy person for the job. There still is a massive culture of 'jobs for the boys' at the top of our society. It is about who you know or who your parents are.

Another important factor is what sort of work a person goes into. Someone who works 80hrs a week as a carer isn't going to earn as much as someone who works an equal amount of time working as a lawyer or banker.